2016
DOI: 10.1609/aaai.v30i1.9953
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Heuristic Planning for Hybrid Systems

Abstract: Planning in hybrid systems has been gaining research interest in the Artificial Intelligence community in recent years. Hybrid systems allow for a more accurate representation of real world problems, though solving them is very challenging due to complex system dynamics and a large model feature set. We developed DiNo, a new planner designed to tackle problems set in hybrid domains.DiNo is based on the discretise and validate approach and uses the novel Staged Relaxed Planning Graph+ (SRPG+) heuristic.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A way to address this is by using PDDL+ (Fox and Long 2006) and relative planners (e.g. UPMurphi (DellaPenna et al 2009), DiNo (Piotrowski et al 2016), ENHSP (Scala et al 2016)). Indeed, PDDL+ is a convenient formalism for planning problems involving infinite discrete space (numeric planning), time-stamped actions (temporal planning), continuous processes, exogenous events etc.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A way to address this is by using PDDL+ (Fox and Long 2006) and relative planners (e.g. UPMurphi (DellaPenna et al 2009), DiNo (Piotrowski et al 2016), ENHSP (Scala et al 2016)). Indeed, PDDL+ is a convenient formalism for planning problems involving infinite discrete space (numeric planning), time-stamped actions (temporal planning), continuous processes, exogenous events etc.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We chose these planners because they take input in standard PDDL, and have been shown to outperform other planners, e.g. dReach (Piotrowski et al 2016); which are more difficult perform a fair comparison with due to the need to translate PDDL to drm.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first is to discretize time according to a user-selected quantum . Planners such as UP-Murphi (Della Penna et al 2009), DiNo (Piotrowski et al 2016) and ENHSP (Scala et al 2016) take this approach. They are flexible in terms of the types of non-linear numeric functions supported, but depend heavily on an value selection that permits both scalability and solving of problems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several PDDL extensions such as PDDL2.1 (Fox and Long 2003) and PDDL+ (Fox and Long 2006) support planning with numeric variables that evolve over time. Most numeric planners are limited to problems with linear or polynomial dynamics (Hoffmann 2003;Bryce et al 2015;Cashmore et al 2016); however, some planners can handle non-polynomial dynamics by discretizing time (Della Penna et al 2009;Piotrowski et al 2016). While it may be technically possible to analytically model, for example, collision constraints among 3D meshes using PDDL+, the resulting encoding would be enormous, far exceeding the capabilities of numeric planners.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%